G.R. No. L-22615 December 24, 1968 - BENEDICTO C.

LAGMAN REME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY 07/10/2017, 2(24 AM

ChanRobles Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com

Like 0 Tweet Share

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > December 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-22615 December
24, 1968 - BENEDICTO C. LAGMAN v. HON. ENRIQUE MEDINA:

Custom Search Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-22615. December 24, 1968.]

BENEDICTO C. LAGMAN, doing business under the firm name and style MARCO TRANSIT,
Petitioner, v. HON. ENRIQUE MEDINA, THE HON. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THE CHIEF
OF POLICE OF MANILA, and their deputies, agents or representatives, Respondents.

David G. Nitafan for Petitioner.

The City of Fiscal of Manila for respondent Chief of Police of Manila.

Almario & Paredes, Jr. for respondent Medina.

DECISION

CONCEPCION, C.J.:

DebtKollect Company, Inc.
Original petition for certiorari and prohibition, to invalidate some orders of the Public Service
Commission hereinafter referred to as PSC or to declare the same inapplicable to petitioner
Benedicto C. Lagman, and to restrain the enforcement of said orders during the pendency of this case.
Upon the filing of the petition, respondents herein, Public Service Commissioner Enrique Medina
hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner the PSC and the Chief of Police of Manila, were required
to file their respective answers within the reglementary period. Meanwhile, Lagman moved that his
prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction be granted, but this Court refused to issue said writ. A second
motion to the same effect was similarly denied.

The pertinent facts are: On February 13, 1963, the Commissioner issued an order, to take effect after
ninety (90) days, providing that only PU buses operating exclusively within the City of Manila shall be
permitted to enter and continue operating within the limits thereof, and requiring provincial PU buses, or
those operating from the City of Manila to any point in Luzon and vice-versa, to establish terminals
outside the City, as well as prohibiting them from entering the same or operating within its perimeter.
This order was amended by a supplemental order, dated March 12, 1963, pursuant to which the
authority to enter and continue operating within the City of Manila was extended to "PU buses operating
exclusively within the limits of Greater Manila," which shall be deemed to include Pasay City, Baclaran,
Makati, Quezon City, San Juan, Mandaluyong, Caloocan, Navotas and Malabon.

By an order dated May 7, 1963, the effectivity of the bus ban was postponed to August 15, 1963. On

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1968decemberdecisions.php?id=677 Page 1 of 4
G.R. No. L-22615 December 24, 1968 - BENEDICTO C. LAGMAN REME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
ChanRobles Intellectual Property
Division
December-1968 Jurisprudence
G.R. No. L-23457 December 16, 1968 - ERNESTO
ESCALER, ET., AL. v. TOMAS P. PANGANIBAN
G.R. No. L-24170 December 16, 1968 - ILLUH
ASAALI, ET., AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
G.R. No. L-28593 December 16, 1968 - JUAN YSASI v.
JOSE F. FERNANDEZ
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1968decemberdecisions.php?id=677
07/10/2017, 2(24 AM
July 22, 1963, the Commissioner issued another order stating that, before the promulgation of the order
of February 13, 1963, notices had been "sent to all PUB operators" which notices were "publicized" in
the newspapers "inviting them to appear . . . for conference" on January 17, 1963; that "the
operators appeared on said date personally or by counsel and were given opportunity to air their
opinions freely and lengthily, and after hearing the side of all the operators, an agreement was reached,
to the effect that the operation of provincial buses and buses in the City of Manila and suburbs should be
regulated" in the manner indicated in the order; that upon the request made by "some interested
operators," the order of February 13, 1963 was amended "so that the radius covered by the term `City
of Manila and suburbs be enlarged to include Greater Manila;" that upon the request of operators who
needed time "to complete their terminals," the date of effectivity of the ban was on May 7, 1963,
postponed to August 15, 1963; that other operators had filed motions for reconsideration praying that
the orders of April 1 and May 7, 1963 "be entirely reconsidered and revoked;" and that the
Commissioner was willing to hear anew these operators "and to receive whatever evidence .. they may
want to introduce," for which reason the corresponding hearing was "set for Aug. 5-9, 1963, at 2 p.m.,
every day till finished."
cralaw virtua1aw library
Moreover, said order of July 22, 1963, "reaffirmed and provisionally maintained" the orders of March 12
and May 7, 1963, and "provisionally included" the municipalities of Pasig, Marikina and Pateros" within
the perimeter of "Greater Manila," as well as required "authorized PUB operators who have straight
routes from Manila and suburbs to the provinces and/or vice-versa" to inform the PSC, within 10 days,
"which of their units shall be operated in the City of Manila and suburbs, and which shall be operated in
the provinces." The foregoing measures were implemented by Administrative Order No. 1 of the
Commissioner, dated February 17, 1964, pertinent parts of which read: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"All public utilities including jeepneys heretofore authorized to operate from the City of Manila to any
point in Luzon, beyond the perimeter of Greater Manila, shall carry the words "For Provincial Operation"
in bold and clear types on both sides or on one side and at the back of the vehicle and must not be less
than 12 inches in dimension. All such vehicles marked "For Provincial Operation" are authorized to
operate outside the perimeter of Greater Manila in accordance with their respective certificates of public
convenience, and are not authorized to enter or to operate beyond the boundary line fixed in our order
of March 12, 1963 and July 22, 1963, with the exception of those vehicles authorized to carry their
provincial passengers thru the boundary line up to their Manila termini which shall be identified by a
sticker signed and furnished by the PSC and by the Mayors of the affected Cities and municipalities, and
which shall be carried on a prominent place of the vehicle about the upper middle part of the windshield.
x x x
"All such public utility vehicles authorized by this Order to enter the City of Manila and to carry their
passengers thru the boundary line, are not permitted to load or unload or to pick and/or drop
passengers along the way, but must do so only in the following places;
"a. Vehicles coming from the NORTH, may load or unload at the Dimasalang Rotonda or at the Corner of
Jose Abad Santos St. and Rizal Avenue;
"b. Vehicles coming from the EAST may load or unload at the Sta. Mesa Rotonda or at the Corner of
Governor Forbes St. and Espaa.
"c. Vehicles coming from the SOUTH may load or unload at the San Andres-Taft Rotonda; at Plaza
Lawton or at the Corner of Harrison and Mabini Streets near the Manila Zoo." cralaw virtua1aw library
On February 27, 1964, the effectivity of the bus ban was further deferred to March 2, 1964.
Prior thereto, or on March 20, 1963, the PSC had granted Lagman a certificate of public convenience to
operate fifteen (15) autotrucks, with fixed route and regular termini, for the transportation of
passengers and freight on the line Bocaue (Bulacan)-Paraaque (Rizal), via Rizal Avenue, Plaza Goiti,
Sta. Cruz Bridge, Plaza Lawton, P. Burgos and Taft Avenue, Manila.
Immediately after the ban become effective, or on March 5, 1964, Lagman filed with the PSC an urgent
petition for exemption from the bus ban. This petition was, on March 12, 1964, reiterated to the PSC en
banc. Soon thereafter, or on March 20, 1964, and before any action had been taken on said petitions,
Lagman commenced the present action, alleging that the bus ban is inapplicable to him, because, at the
time of the issuance of the first order establishing the ban, he was not yet a public utility operator; that
he had not been notified of the hearings held on August 5-9, 1963; that the provisions of the bus ban
had not been incorporated into his certificate of public convenience; that to be applicable to a grantee of
such certificate subsequently to the issuance of the order establishing the ban, there should be a
decision, not merely by the Commissioner, but, also, by the PSC, rendered after due notice and hearing,
based upon material changes in the facts and circumstances under which the certificate had been
granted; and that, the ban is unfair, unreasonable and oppressive.
Petitioners claim is devoid of merit, inasmuch as: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. The terms and conditions of the bus ban established by the Commissioner are substantially identical
to those contained in Ordinance No. 4986 of the City of Manila "rerouting traffic on roads and streets"
therein, approved on July 30, 1964. In G.R. No. L-23305, entitled "Lagman v. City of Manila," petitioner
herein assailed the validity of said ordinance, upon the ground, among others, that it tended to amend
or modify certificates of public conveniences issued by the PSC; that the power therein exercised by the
City of Manila belongs to the PSC; and that the ordinance is arbitrary, oppressive and unreasonable. In a
decision promulgated on June 30, 1966, this Court rejected this pretense and dismissed Lagmans
petition in said case.
2. Petitioners certificate of public convenience, like all other similar certificates, was issued subject to
the condition that operators "shall observe and comply . . . all the rules and regulations of the
Commission relative to PUB service," and the contested orders issued pursuant to Section 13(a),
16(g) and 17(a) of Commonwealth Act No. 146, as a-mended partake of the nature of such rules and
regulations.
3. Said orders were merely provisional in nature, since public hearings were then still being held in
connection with the aforementioned bus ban.
4. The purpose of the ban to minimize the "traffic problem in the City of Manila" and the "traffic
congestion, delays and even accidents" resulting from the free entry into the streets of said City and the
Page 2 of 4
G.R. No. L-22615 December 24, 1968 - BENEDICTO C. LAGMAN REME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY 07/10/2017, 2(24 AM

G.R. No. L-20392 December 18, 1968 - MARCIAL T.
CAEDO, ET., AL v. YU KHE THAI, ET., AL.
G.R. No. L-20920 December 18, 1968 - RESTITUTO
SIBAL v. GREGORIO T. LANTIN
G.R. Nos. L-24198 & 24207-10 December 18, 1968 -
PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO. v.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
G.R. No. L-21118 December 18, 1968 - LEON
CLIMACO v. CARLOS SIY UY, ET AL.,
G.R. No. L-24993 December 18, 1968 - UNITED
RETAURORS EMPLOYEES & LABOR UNION v. HON.
GUILLERMO E. TORRES
G.R. No. L-22615 December 24, 1968 - BENEDICTO C.
LAGMAN v. HON. ENRIQUE MEDINA
G.R. No. L-24349 December 24, 1968 - SEVEN-UP
BOTTLING CO. OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO RIMERATA
operation "around said streets, loading and unloading or picking up passengers and cargoes" of PU
buses in great "number and size" 1 and the letter and spirit of the contested orders are inconsistent
with the exclusion of Lagman or of those granted certificates of public convenience subsequently to the
issuance of said orders from the operation thereof.
5. Two (2) of Lagmans buses, or 15% of all his units, had been exempted from the operation of the ban,
to shuttle petitioners passengers from the corresponding entry control points in the City of Manila.
6. Although the decision granting Lagmans application for a certificate of public convenience was
rendered on March 20, 1963, or a little over a month after the first order of February 13, 1963,
establishing the bus ban, such order was amended, not only by an order dated March 12, 1963, but,
also, by subsequent orders dated May 7 and July 22, 1963, and February 27, 1964, or subsequently to
the promulgation of said decision, and these amendatory orders have taken the place of the order of
February 13, 1963.
7. From January, 1963 when notices were sent to all PUB operators inviting them to a conference with
the Commissioner in connection with the proposed bus ban, which notices were "publicized in the
newspapers" to March 2, 1964, when the ban became effective, Lagman had more than ample time
within which to submit his objections, if any, to said proposal, yet he did not do so until after the ban
had become effective.

G.R. No. L-26252 December 24, 1968 - CONRADO
DIZON, ET., AL. v. HONORIO ROMERO
G.R. No. L-25406 December 24, 1968 - SOCIAL
SECURITY SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. L-27933 December 24, 1968 - DIVERSIFIED
CREDIT CORPORATION v. FELIPE ROSADO, ET., AL.
G.R. No. L-21906 December 24, 1968 - INOCENCIA
DELUAO, ET., AL v. NICANOR CASTEEL, ET., AL
G.R. No. L-25078 December 24, 1968 - ALATCO
TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. ROSALIO S. BONETE, JR.
G.R. No. L-29471 December 24, 1968 - PHIL.
ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU) v.
HON. JOAQUIN M. SALVADOR, ET AL.
8. His objections to said ban, as set forth in the urgent petitions filed by him with PSC, on March 5 and
12, 1964, are those relied upon in his petition herein - namely, (a) non-incorporation in his certificate of
public convenience of the terms and conditions of the ban; (b) the same allegedly had the effect of
amending said certificate; (c) alleged unfairness, unreasonableness and oppresiveness of the ban; (d)
non-inclusion of his auto-trucks within the purview of the ban which, as above indicated, are
untenable.
9. The theory to the effect that, to be valid, the aforementioned orders must be issued by the PSC, not
merely by its Commissioner, and only after due notice and hearing, is predicated upon the premise that
the bus ban operates as an amendment of petitioners certificate of public convenience, which is false,
and was not sustained by this Court in its decision in G.R. No. L-23305, which is binding upon Lagman,
he being the petitioner in said case.
WHEREFORE, the petition herein should be as it is hereby dismissed and the writs prayed for denied,
with costs against petitioner Benedicto C. Lagman.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-29488 December 24, 1968 - ANGEL M. Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez Ruiz Castro, Fernando and Capistrano, JJ., concur.
TINIO v. DALMACIO MINA, ET AL.,
Footnote
G.R. No. L-29676 December 24, 1968 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. LOURDES P. SAN DIEGO
1. As stated in the order of February 13, 1963.
G.R. No. L-29905 December 24, 1968 - N. M.
BALUYOT & CO. v. ANTONIO TY, ET., AL.

G.R. No. L-29588 December 27, 1968 - ANTONIO J. Ads by Google Digest GR GR VS Court GR
VILLEGAS, ET., AL. v. ABELARDO SUBIDO Ads by Google GR No GR L GR 15
G.R. No. L-21601 December 28, 1968 - NIELSON & Ads by Google GR People Contact Manila Case Law
COMPANY, INC. v. LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING
COMPANY
Back to Home | Back to Main
G.R. No. L-23697 December 28, 1968 - OCTAVIO
INFANTADO v. FELIPE LIWANAG

G.R. No. L-26521 December 28, 1968 - EUSEBIO QUICK SEARCH

VILLANUEVA, ET AL., v. CITY OF ILOILO

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908

1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016

Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1968decemberdecisions.php?id=677 Page 3 of 4
G.R. No. L-22615 December 24, 1968 - BENEDICTO C. LAGMAN REME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY 07/10/2017, 2(24 AM

Copyright 1998 - 2017 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com RED

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1968decemberdecisions.php?id=677 Page 4 of 4